Skip to main content

Full text of "Byzantine Churches In Constantinople"

vi          THE CHURCH OF S. MARY PANACHRANTOS       133
length is of practically the same width as the southern and western sides^ suddenly widens out at the eastern end and opens into a side chapel broader than that on the opposite side. The two large piers separating' the ambulatory from the central part of the north church are evidently formed by building the wall of one church against the pre-existing wall of the other. The easternmost pier is smaller and, as can be seen from the plan, is a continuation of the wall of the north church. Clearly the north church was already built when the north-eastern chapel of the south church was erected, and the existing wall was utilised. As the external architectural style of the three apses of the south church is identical^ it is reasonable to conclude that this part of the south church also is later in date than the north church. For if the entire south church had been built at the same time as the apsess we should expect to find the lateral chapels similar. But they are not. The vaulting of the central apse and of the southern lateral chapel are similar, while that of the northern chapel is different. On the same supposition we should also expect to find a similar use of the wall of the north church throughout, but we have seen that two piers representing the old wall of the south church still remain. The narthex of the south church,  however, is carried up to the line of the north church wall.
The four column type is not found previous to the tenth century. The date of the north church was originally given on the inscription, but is now obliterated. Kondakoff dates it in the eleventh or twelfth century. Wulff would put it as late as the fifteenth. But if the view that this church was attached to the monastery of Lips is correct, the building must belong to the tenth century.
The ambulatory type appears to be early, and the examples in Constantinople seem to date from the sixth to the ninth. century. It may therefore be concluded that, unless there is proof to the contrary, the" south church is the earlier. In that case the southernmost parts of the two large piers which separate the two churches represent the old outer wall of the original south church, whose eastern chapels were then symmetrical. To this the north church was added, but at